|
At just over 5k miles I think my Passat 2.0TDi is loosening up nicely, and on a recent trip to Surrey and the south coast it cruised beautifully in 6th gear with cruise control on motorways and dual carriageways. And it did 380 miles on half a tank. Not sure what the mpg is but the prospect of 750 miles per tank on longer trips is seeems good for a fairly big car.
|
|
If your VW is ilke my Audi the first half of the tank includes about 100 miles before the needle starts moving. I regularly see 300-350 miles on 'half' a tank, but by 500 the warning is sounding with about 8 litres remaining.
|
you'd probably get even more mpg if you didn't use your cruise :)
As davejp said, if you brim the tank you get quite a few miles in before the needle moves
|
|
|
|
750 on a tankful might be a tad optimistic - fuel gauges always seem to fall faster in the second half than the first, which some of the technically-minded folks here may be able to explain. My S60 D5 will often go 350 miles before the gauge gets to halfway, but my record between fuel stops is only (!) 607 miles. It took 59.7 litres then to fill it to the first stop, and since the tank is said to hold 70, there may have been enough left for another 100 miles but I'm not brave enough to find out - once that orange light comes on, there's only one thing I want to do! Your Passat, though, has a smaller engine and a sixth gear, so perhaps 750 is a possibility for you. Do let us know if you get there.
The long range spoils you, though - I'm not sure I could go back to a petrol car and get used to stopping for fuel every 300 miles. 600 miles in my present routine amounts to about once a month, which is fine with me.
|
I take your points about the first half being a bit optimistic but this is the first time I've had significantly more than 300 miles for the first half.
My trip to the wilds of NW Scotland at Easter will give me the opportunity to see whatt the other half tank will deliver in touring mode.
And why is cruise worse for economy? I thought it was better!
|
It's 'cos the float gets jammed at the top of the tank under all the fuel. Takes a while for it to move. Get a Citroen fuel gauge, which goes:
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Nearly Empty
Full
Empty.
|
|
Snigger. Reminds me of travelling in my mum's 1974 Renault 4, whose fuel gauge would go from full to empty and back (maybe several times) in the time it took to cross a humpback bridge. Perhaps the sticking float was an intentional engineering solution to this - at least it gives the illusion of accuracy!
|
Never mind the fuel gauge - they are innaccurate!
best is 567 miles on 45.04 litres (filled to second click as recommended). Warning light had not come on (comes on with 50 l used) - just checked the book and it is actually a 65 litre tank - thought it was 60!
20litres left in tank so would have done 800 miles.
Diesel Accord Estate so similar sized car to the Passat!
|
I managed to get 480 miles out of my P10 Primera eGT (petrol) once, the fuel light was flickering occansionally on the M6 as I went up through Cheshire but I was determined to get home on the remains of the petrol and drove back (at about 55mph...unless proceeding through a lower speed limit whereupon I obeyed it) from Thelwall all the way home to Chorley.
strangely, I managed to get 11 gallons into it the next day, but the car's fuel economy just seemed to get better and better once it passed 150k miles, so it too was "loosening up nicely"
480 miles was an exception though, obviously helped by me not drving at 80 on the motorway all the time. could regularly crack 420 miles out of 10/11 gallons though.
I think I shall try and aim for 500 miles on my P11-144 Primera, once I've worked out just how much fuel is left when the warning light comes on...
|
268miles on 54ltrs :-(( - tank holds 68ltrs
Dave
|
|
|
|
I believe that cruise control is a little worse for mpg because you're forcing the car to remain at a constant speed - rather than a constant mpg.
|
I believe that cruise control is a little worse for mpg because you're forcing the car to remain at a constant speed - rather than a constant mpg.
How would you maintain a constant mpg in normal driving?
The only way I can think of is to monitor the instant fuel consumption reading on the trip computer and adjust your speed accordingly - and we all know that simply is not feasible!
IMO for long journeys at m'way speeds CC* is probably the best option - both economically and lower stress levels.
*Providing of course you set it to a reasonable speed and it's quiet. Setting it to 80mph on a busy m'way would be one way to have a coronary just before you crashed! ;-)
|
I can achieve a constant mpg on a quiet road quite easily achieved with the BMW econometer, which I find preferable because it's analogue. My wife's vectra has a digital readout which just isn't as driver friendly.
For example there's a 5 mile stretch of dual carriage way on my route to work with a couple of gradiants. Going down the hills just take your foot of the go pedal and gain a couple of mph and so you can gain a little momentum for the incline. Cruise control wouldn't allow this as it would slow the car on the downhill and then use a tiny bit more fuel to ascend the (gentle) gradiant.
I really wouldn't recommend this for motorway use, although it was useful during the fuel crisis on my drive to work (via A roads).
|
>>Cruise control wouldn't allow this as it would slow the car on the downhill and then use a tiny bit more fuel to ascend the (gentle) gradiant.
I doubt it - cruise controls typically don't brake for you - they would relax the throttle in these conditions, just like a driver - there's no difference here.
In most cases, you would have to be trying very hard to beat cruise control for economy, while doing comparable speeds. Human beings aren't great controllers, and by removing most of the spurious accelerations and coasting that typifies human control, cruise control can acheive very good results.
Number_Cruncher
|
|
you do realise what's going to happen now don't you......a number of backroomers are now going to set an average on the cruise and then try to beat it themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
I love cruise control and use it often, especially on quiet motorways and scamera scanned roadworks. It increases consumption slightly becuase it accelerates up hill more that you would do so yourself, to maintain the speed. However, it is very relaxing, and I have driven to London and back in a day twice without feeling tired.
|
My Renault 1.5 dCi will do 700 on a tank provided I don't hammer it. I don't know whether it's accurate but I suspect it is since I regularly drive 650 miles from Bath to central France and there still seems a range of approx 70 miles left.
But I'm getting a 2.0 petrol next, I miss the petrol performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Used to reckon on 1500 km per tank in my old Passat 1.9 Tdi, 90 PS, just short of 950 miles.
|
my Jag magazine did a John o ' Groats to Lands End in an XJ TDVi to see if they could get there in one go.
they did it seriously as an economy run ( re-did the ECU, extra tryre pressure, took out all unnecessary weight etc)
managed Lands End easily, so then went for the 1,000 mile figure
which they just achieved somewhere near Bristol
not bad going for a big car that's auto....and Cornwall and Devon are not exactly flat either
|
|
My Vectra's cruise slows the car and keeps it at the set speed. (assuming you're not going down a 1:1)
|
|
|
>>I doubt it - cruise controls typically don't brake for you - they would relax the throttle in these conditions, just like a driver - there's no difference here.
Although an Audi A6 multitronic I had & my current c270 do try to slow the car on steep hills - both *drop a gear if necessary, ( * the Audi of course, just re-jigged
its cones)
>>In most cases, you would have to be trying very hard to beat cruise control for economy, while doing comparable speeds. Human beings aren't great controllers, >>and by removing most of the spurious accelerations and coasting that typifies human control, cruise control can acheive very good results.
Although I love the convenience of CC, for real economy I go 'au naturel' - I can look ahead, the CC can't. Also, feathering the throttle
near hill apexes doesn't lose much speed, but CC invariably get a bit 'excited' and generally over-reacts to rises or hills , IME.
|
I didn't realise the newer cruise controls did slow cars down - the ones I've played with just worked the throttle, via a cluch which disengaged if you touched the brakes or clutch, or if the speed couldn't be maintained.
Some cruise controls are better than others in rejecting disturbances like changes in gradient - it's all down to the algorithms and settings of the control program in the controller, and how well it is matched to the characteristics of the vehicle.
Number_Cruncher
|
Glasgow to London and back in my Xantia HDi 110, think it has a 65 litre tank but didn't check exactly how much I squeezed into it. In the end, I managed 917 miles before I stopped playing chicken with the low fuel light.
No cruise control, nor any great effort to economise, few blasts at 80mph but generally sticking to about 65-70mph.
|
X
Stunning! I used to do over 400 regularly on a tankful when I had a 2.0 petrol Xantia so the diesel should do something amazing but 917 is truly astonishing!
JH
|
|
That's very impressive! I've had a few genuine 50+ mpg tankfuls in my Passat PD130, which is about 630 miles before the refuel warning light
|
|
It's theoretically possible in my 2005 Mondeo 2.0 TDCi (Euro 3) to achieve 776.6 mpg on a tankful. Tank holds 58.5 litres and extra-urban figure is 60.4 mpg
|
|
|
|
|
|
